My point is actually in reference to non disclosure of owners. Bates doesn’t have to declare who owns the club under football league rules.

And it won’t stop the goons like Taksin Shinawatra, Glazers, Gillette and Hicks and fake sheiks taking over clubs and taking out huge loans on the club. If the loans can’t be repayed, the owners will be all right, but the club is up for sale.

One thing I have learned through life Mike is that no one is ever as bad (or as good) as we imagine. When Ken Bates took over the reigns at Leeds so many ‘fans’ went on the warpath not at Bates himself but at their idea of Bates: He was previously associated with Chelsea (enter tribal hatred); he took a gamble and became obscenely rich (stirs up jealously); he tends to be bombastic and to believe his own publicity (being honest I would like something of his self-belief); he knows how to play the system (lucky sod); he will not tell us everything we want to know about our club (something we feel we deserve but may not be in the club’s commercial interest) etc. etc.

OK, so Bates is so supremely self-confident that he cares not what people think and thus does nothing to mollify the view of those who have already made up their mind about him – probably a wise move since there are none so blind as those who will not revise their opinion.

What I have learned from this life lesson is that if I do allow myself to take off my blinkers I tend to find that those I despise or admire are actually a lot like me. There are bad and good motives living within my mortal shell that cause some to pigeonhole me (often the ones who see something they don’t like about themselves displayed in me) but don’t stop others getting close enough to find out that, underneath it all, I’m trying to make my way just like they are.

This is why I tend not to scapegoat either Grayson or Bates when I become angry, worried or upset about the present state of my club. I hope that, one day, he is replaced by a more affable character with the long term interests of our club at his heart – but the last of those was called Ridsdale and look what a mess he made.

Lord Mawhinney has actually made life worse for clubs who are in financial difficulty and this is borne out of jhaving no knowledge of football prior to bcoming chairman of the football league. Like many other former politicians he will sdoubltess hold a number of roles as a managing director, non executive director, bu this is one which needs a head full time and with experience. The principle that a good business head, and some experience of leadership is enough is a total joke.

All the moronic chairman who scented bllod when we were in administration and decided to vote for a further decuction of points were like turkeys voting for christmas, most other clubs dont have leeds’ inherent resources of a huge fanbase, and players to sell. Look whatsa happened to Luton and Chester, both circling the plughole. The fact of the matter is that a proper leader would never have proposed this as an option. Football is football, finance is finance. The two should remain separate, wage caps, transfer spending limits, these are all sensible things that he should have brought in, instead he dealt with the symptoms alone, ie what to do when a patient becomes terminally ill.. as opposed to how do we stop a healthy club becoming ill?

Lord Mawhinney had an issue with Ken Bates, we all do, it was totally unprofessional and very blinkered to punish the football club however. Ken was only going to walk away with his money in the bank, we would have been left with nothing.

I could rant and rant, but enough to say that it is excellent that Lord Mawhinney is going, and sad that he didnt resign.

That is the sweetener that makes suffering Bates possible.
For that we must be forever grateful and give him a resounding cheer when he buggers off.